virtual philosophertag:typepad.com,2003:weblog-5040692016-11-17T18:03:14+00:00'If you can't say it clearly, you don't understand it yourself' John SearleTypePadTimothy Williamson Gives a Clear Analysis of Vagueness and Why it Matters (originally published in Aeon)tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834516cc769e201b8d23aadab970c2016-11-17T18:03:14+00:002016-11-17T18:03:14+00:00Imagine a heap of sand. You carefully remove one grain. Is there still a heap? The obvious answer is: yes. Removing one grain doesn’t turn a heap into no heap. That principle can be applied again as you remove another...nigel warburton

Imagine a heap of sand. You carefully remove one grain. Is there still a heap? The obvious answer is: yes. Removing one grain doesn’t turn a heap into no heap. That principle can be applied again as you remove another grain, and then another… After each removal, there’s still a heap, according to the principle. But there were only finitely many grains to start with, so eventually you get down to a heap with just three grains, then a heap with just two grains, a heap with just one grain, and finally a heap with no grains at all. But that’s ridiculous. There must be something wrong with the principle. Sometimes, removing one grain does turn a heap into no heap. But that seems ridiculous too. How can one grain make so much difference? That ancient puzzle is called the sorites paradox, from the Greek word for ‘heap’.

There would be no problem if we had a nice, precise definition of ‘heap’ that told us exactly how many grains you need for a heap. The trouble is that we don’t have such a definition. The word ‘heap’ is vague. There isn’t a clear boundary between heap and no heap. Mostly, that doesn’t matter. We get along well enough applying the word ‘heap’ on the basis of casual impressions. But if the local council charged you with having dumped a heap of sand in a public place, and you denied that it amounted to a heap, whether you had to pay a large fine might depend on the meaning of the word ‘heap’.

More important legal and moral issues also involve vagueness. For instance, in the process of human development from conception to birth to maturity, when is there first a person? In a process of brain death, when is there no longer a person? Such questions matter for the permissibility of medical interventions such as abortion and switching off life-support. To discuss them properly, we must be able to reason correctly with vague words such as ‘person’.

You can find aspects of vagueness in most words of English or any other language. Out loud or in our heads, we reason mostly in vague terms. Such reasoning can easily generate sorites-like paradoxes. Can you become poor by losing one cent? Can you become tall by growing one millimetre? At first, the paradoxes seem to be trivial verbal tricks. But the more rigorously philosophers have studied them, the deeper and harder they have turned out to be. They raise doubts about the most basic logical principles.

Traditionally, logic is based on the assumption that every statement is either true or false (and not both). That’s called bivalence, because it says that there are just two truth-values, truth and falsity. Fuzzy logic is an influential alternative approach to the logic of vagueness that rejects bivalence in favour of a continuum of degrees of truth and falsity, ranging from perfect truth at one end to perfect falsity at the other. In the middle, a statement can be simultaneously half-true and half-false. On this view, as you remove one grain after another, the statement ‘There is a heap’ becomes less and less true by tiny steps. No one step takes you from perfect truth to perfect falsity. Fuzzy logic rejects some key principles of classical logic, on which standard mathematics relies. For example, the traditional logician says, at every stage: ‘Either there is a heap or there isn’t’: that’s an instance of a general principle called excluded middle. The fuzzy logician replies that when ‘There is a heap’ is only half-true, then ‘Either there is a heap or there isn’t’ is only half-true too.

At first sight, fuzzy logic might look like a natural, elegant solution to the problem of vagueness. But when you work through its consequences, it’s less convincing. To see why, imagine two heaps of sand, exact duplicates of each other, one on the right, one on the left. Whenever you remove one grain from one side, you remove the exactly corresponding grain from the other side too. At each stage, the sand on the right and the sand on the left are exact grain-by-grain duplicates of each other. This much is clear: if there’s a heap on the right, then there’s a heap on the left too, and vice versa.

Now, according to the fuzzy logician, as we remove grains one by one, sooner or later we reach a point where the statement ‘There’s a heap on the right’ is half-true and half-false. Since what’s on the left duplicates what’s on the right, ‘There’s a heap on the left’ is half-true and half-false too. The rules of fuzzy logic then imply that the complex statement ‘There’s a heap on the right and no heap on the left’ is also half-true and half-false, which means that we should be equally balanced between accepting and rejecting it. But that’s absurd. We should just totally reject the statement, since ‘There’s a heap on the right and no heap on the left’ entails that there is a difference between what’s on the right and what’s on the left – but there is no such difference; they are grain-by-grain duplicates. Thus fuzzy logic gives the wrong result. It misses the subtleties of vagueness.

There are many other complicated proposals for revising logic to accommodate vagueness. My own view is that they are all trying to fix something that isn’t broken. Standard logic, with bivalence and excluded middle, is well-tested, simple and powerful. Vagueness isn’t a problem about logic; it’s a problem about knowledge. A statement can be true without your knowing that it is true. There really is a stage when you have a heap, you remove one grain, and you no longer have a heap. The trouble is that you have no way of recognising that stage when it arrives, so you don’t know at which point this happens.

A vague word such as ‘heap’ is used so loosely that any attempt to locate its exact boundaries has nothing solid and reliable to go on. Although language is a human construct, that does not make it transparent to us. Like the children we make, the meanings we make can have secrets from us. Fortunately, not everything is secret from us. Often, we know there’s a heap; often, we know there isn’t one. Sometimes, we don’t know whether there is one or not. Nobody ever gave us the right to know everything!

Timothy Williamson

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

Philosophy Sites: a new podcast by Nigel Warburtontag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834516cc769e201bb093956e8970d2016-09-22T10:09:26+01:002016-09-22T10:09:26+01:00Philosophy Sites has just launched. This is a podcast series focusing on places linked to philosophers. The first episode, available from www.philosophysites.com and on iTunes, is an interview with the award-winning biographer of Wittgenstein, Ray Monk, on the topic of...nigel warburton

Philosophy Sites has just launched. This is a podcast series focusing on places linked to philosophers. The first episode, available from www.philosophysites.com and on iTunes, is an interview with the award-winning biographer of Wittgenstein, Ray Monk, on the topic of Wittgenstein's grave. The discussion ranges across issues of aesthetics, culture, and death. Future episodes will include interviews about Jeremy Bentham's Auto Icon, and Karl Marx's flat in Soho, London...

Photo by Nigel Warburton please feel free to use this...

Do you know your own mind? by Keith Frankishtag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834516cc769e201b7c88a5c69970b2016-08-22T10:29:20+01:002016-08-22T10:29:20+01:00Do you think racial stereotypes are false? Are you sure? I’m not asking if you’re sure whether or not the stereotypes are false, but if you’re sure whether or not you think that they are. That might seem like a...nigel warburton

Do you think racial stereotypes are false? Are you sure? I’m not asking if you’re sure whether or not the stereotypes are false, but if you’re sure whether or not you think that they are. That might seem like a strange question. We all know what we think, don’t we?

Most philosophers of mind would agree, holding that we have privileged access to our own thoughts, which is largely immune from error. Some argue that we have a faculty of ‘inner sense’, which monitors the mind just as the outer senses monitor the world. There have been exceptions, however. The mid-20th-century behaviourist philosopher Gilbert Ryle held that we learn about our own minds, not by inner sense, but by observing our own behaviour, and that friends might know our minds better than we do. (Hence the joke: two behaviourists have just had sex and one turns to the other and says: ‘That was great for you, darling. How was it for me?’) And the contemporary philosopher Peter Carruthers proposes a similar view (though for different reasons), arguing that our beliefs about our own thoughts and decisions are the product of self-interpretation and are often mistaken.

Evidence for this comes from experimental work in social psychology. It is well established that people sometimes think they have beliefs that they don’t really have. For example, if offered a choice between several identical items, people tend to choose the one on the right. But when asked why they chose it, they confabulate a reason, saying they thought the item was a nicer colour or better quality. Similarly, if a person performs an action in response to an earlier (and now forgotten) hypnotic suggestion, they will confabulate a reason for performing it. What seems to be happening is that the subjects engage in unconscious self-interpretation. They don’t know the real explanation of their action (a bias towards the right, hypnotic suggestion), so they infer some plausible reason and ascribe it to themselves. They are not aware that they are interpreting, however, and make their reports as if they were directly aware of their reasons.

Many other studies support this explanation. For example, if people are instructed to nod their heads while listening to a tape (in order, they are told, to test the headphones), they express more agreement with what they hear than if they are asked to shake their heads. And if they are required to choose between two items they previously rated as equally desirable, they subsequently say that they prefer the one they had chosen. Again, it seems, they are unconsciously interpreting their own behaviour, taking their nodding to indicate agreement and their choice to reveal a preference.

Building on such evidence, Carruthers makes a powerful case for an interpretive view of self-knowledge, set out in his book The Opacity of Mind (2011). The case starts with the claim that humans (and other primates) have a dedicated mental subsystem for understanding other people’s minds, which swiftly and unconsciously generates beliefs about what others think and feel, based on observations of their behaviour. (Evidence for such a ‘mindreading’ system comes from a variety of sources, including the rapidity with which infants develop an understanding of people around them.) Carruthers argues that this same system is responsible for our knowledge of our own minds. Humans did not develop a second, inward-looking mindreading system (an inner sense); rather, they gained self-knowledge by directing the outward-looking system upon themselves. And because the system is outward-looking, it has access only to sensory inputs and must draw its conclusions from them alone. (Since it has direct access to sensory states, our knowledge of what we are experiencing is not interpretative.)

The reason we know our own thoughts better than those of others is simply that we have more sensory data to draw on – not only perceptions of our own speech and behaviour, but also our emotional responses, bodily senses (pain, limb position, and so on), and a rich variety of mental imagery, including a steady stream of inner speech. (There is strong evidence that mental images involve the same brain mechanisms as perceptions and are processed like them.) Carruthers calls this the Interpretive Sensory-Access (ISA) theory, and he marshals a huge array of experimental evidence in support of it.

The ISA theory has some startling consequences. One is that (with limited exceptions), we do not have conscious thoughts or make conscious decisions. For, if we did, we would be aware of them directly, not through interpretation. The conscious events we undergo are all sensory states of some kind, and what we take to be conscious thoughts and decisions are really sensory images – in particular, episodes of inner speech. These images might express thoughts, but they need to be interpreted.

Another consequence is that we might be sincerely mistaken about our own beliefs. Return to my question about racial stereotypes. I guess you said you think they are false. But if the ISA theory is correct, you can’t be sure you think that. Studies show that people who sincerely say that racial stereotypes are false often continue to behave as if they are true when not paying attention to what they are doing. Such behaviour is usually said to manifest an implicitbias, which conflicts with the person’s explicit beliefs. But the ISA theory offers a simpler explanation. People think that the stereotypes are true but also that it is not acceptable to admit this and therefore say they are false. Moreover, they say this to themselves too, in inner speech, and mistakenly interpret themselves as believing it. They are hypocrites but not conscious hypocrites. Maybe we all are.

If our thoughts and decisions are all unconscious, as the ISA theory implies, then moral philosophers have a lot of work to do. For we tend to think that people can’t be held responsible for their unconscious attitudes. Accepting the ISA theory might not mean giving up on responsibility, but it will mean radically rethinking it.

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

Events (2016)tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834516cc769e201b7c84a03f7970b2016-04-26T15:18:09+01:002017-03-24T23:08:28+00:00Events Philosophy in the Bookshop (Blackwell's bookshop, Oxford) Nigel Warburton is interviewing a number of philosophers at Blackwell's bookshop in Oxford for the series Philosophy in the Bookshop. All events are free and no booking is required. Forthcoming interviews: Saturday...nigel warburton

Events

Philosophy in the Bookshop (Blackwell's bookshop, Oxford)

Nigel Warburton is interviewing a number of philosophers at Blackwell's bookshop in Oxford for the series Philosophy in the Bookshop. All events are free and no booking is required. Forthcoming interviews:

Big Ideas in Social Science (SAGE publishing) edited by David Edmonds and Nigel Warburton - this is based on the podcast series Social Science Bites and consists of modified transcripts of 18 interviews with social scientists, including Kate Pickett, Jonathan Haidt, Stephen Pinker, Ann Oakley, Robert J. Shiller, Bruce Hood, Robin Dunbar, David Goldblatt and others.

News and Eventstag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834516cc769e201bb08a9225c970d2016-01-08T14:24:40+00:002016-04-26T15:17:26+01:00Just published: Big Ideas in Social Science (SAGE publishing) edited by David Edmonds and Nigel Warburton - this is based on the podcast series Social Science Bites and consists of modified transcripts of 18 interviews with social scientists, including Kate...nigel warburton

Just published: Big Ideas in Social Science (SAGE publishing) edited by David Edmonds and Nigel Warburton - this is based on the podcast series Social Science Bites and consists of modified transcripts of 18 interviews with social scientists, including Kate Pickett, Jonathan Haidt, Stephen Pinker, Ann Oakley, Robert J. Shiller, Bruce Hood, Robin Dunbar, David Goldblatt and others.

'[A]gainst those who laud the present state of society, with its unjustly rich and its unjustly poor, with its palaces and its slums, its millionaires and its paupers, be it ours to proclaim that there is a higher ideal in life than that of being first in line for wealth...Be it ours to declare that health, comfort, leisure, culture, plenty for every individual are far more desirable than the breathless struggle for existence, furious trampling down of the weak by the strong, huge fortunes accumulated out of the toil of others, to be handed down to those who had done nothing to earn them'.

The course will run from 8.10pm - 9.40pm in the Bertrand Russell room (apart from 2oth Jan, which is in the Brockway Room)

This is an introductory course examining some key ideas in the Philosophy of Art. Topics discussed will include several different approaches to the question 'What is Art?' such as Clive Bell's Formalism, R.G. Collingwood's The Principles of Art, the neo-Wittgensteinian critique of attempts to define art, Arthur Danto and George Dickie on art and institutions. We'll also discuss questions about the relevance of an artist's intentions to interpretation, and the vexed issue of the basis of critical judgments about particular works of art, taking off from David Hume's famous essay 'Of the Standard of Taste'.

For those who haven't studied Philosophy before, my books Philosophy: the Basics and A Little History of Philosophy are intended for general readers. Philosophy: the Basics includes a chapter on the Philosophy of Art.

Booking

The price for the 5-session course is £85 payable in advance via Paypal using the buttons below. (concessions - full time students, unemployed, and those who have attend previous courses I've run: £70 - use drop down menu on Paypal button).

Special price if you take both An Introduction to thePhilosophy of Art and An Introduction to Existentialismcourses: £150 full price, concessions (as above) £120. Further details of An Introduction to Existentialism course (this course runs on the same evenings as the existentialism course from 6.30pm - 8pm).

Book now for An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art course at Conway Hall

Full Price/Concession

Book now for both courses: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art and An Introduction to Existentialism

Full Price/Concession

Comment on a previous course:

'Fully recommend attending Nigel Warburton's Philosophy courses. Around this time last year, I had never studied Philosophy before, never been to university and had been out of education for three years. After doing a few courses with Nigel, I chose to enrol and am now studying Philosophy at the University of Sussex, where I have just received a first for an essay in my first term! Nigel is a brilliant teacher and his courses are hugely enjoyable and informative for people at all levels. I didn't realise just how much I'd learnt until I was able to apply it to a range of modules at university study. It was a fantastic grounding in the subject and if you're thinking about studying philosophy further or just for fun, and particularly if you haven't studied it before - Nigel's definitely your man! The courses make perfect Christmas pressies too - I spent my Christmas money on last year's course and it was a very sound investment! I also loved meeting a range of people on the courses from secondary school pupils to middle aged professionals - it really has something to offer everyone.'

The course will run from 6.30p.m. - 8 p.m. (doors open from 6.15pm) in the Bertrand Russell room (apart from 2oth Jan, which is in the Brockway Room)

This is an introductory course examining some key existentialist thinkers' work. We'll be looking at Fear and Trembling and Either/Or by the Danish 19th Century thinker Søren Kierkegaard, selections from the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, including The Birth of Tragedy, and The Genealogy of Morals, and Jean-Paul Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism and parts of his Being and Nothingness. No prior knowledge of philosophy is assumed or necessary. I'll make suggestions for further reading/listening after each session.

If you want to do some reading before the course, I suggest you read Jean-Paul Sartre's short Existentialism is a Humanism - this was originally a public lecture which he gave in 1945 (sometimes mistranslated as 'Existentialism and Humanism'). You could also listen to this radio programme about Kierkegaard I made for BBC Radio 3 'Fear and Trembling in Copenhagen'. You might also want to read the relevant chapters of my book Philosophy: the Classics (ie those on Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Sartre) and watch this video about Jean-Paul Sartre on YouTube 'The Road to Freedom'

For those who haven't studied Philosophy before, my books Philosophy: the Basics and A Little History of Philosophy are intended for general readers.

Booking

The price for the 5-session course is £85 payable in advance via Paypal using the buttons below. (concessions - full time students, unemployed, and those who have attend previous courses I've run: £70 - use drop down menu on Paypal button).

Special price if you take both Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre course and ThePhilosophy of Art courses: £150 full price, concessions (as above) £120. Further details of ThePhilosophy of Art course (this course runs on the same evenings as the existentialism course from 8.10pm - 9.40pm).

Book now for Introduction to Existentialism course at Conway Hall:

Full Price/Concession

Book now for both courses Introudtion to Existentialism and Introduction to the Philosophy of Art

Full Price/Concession

Comment on a previous course:

'Fully recommend attending Nigel Warburton's Philosophy courses. Around this time last year, I had never studied Philosophy before, never been to university and had been out of education for three years. After doing a few courses with Nigel, I chose to enrol and am now studying Philosophy at the University of Sussex, where I have just received a first for an essay in my first term! Nigel is a brilliant teacher and his courses are hugely enjoyable and informative for people at all levels. I didn't realise just how much I'd learnt until I was able to apply it to a range of modules at university study. It was a fantastic grounding in the subject and if you're thinking about studying philosophy further or just for fun, and particularly if you haven't studied it before - Nigel's definitely your man! The courses make perfect Christmas pressies too - I spent my Christmas money on last year's course and it was a very sound investment! I also loved meeting a range of people on the courses from secondary school pupils to middle aged professionals - it really has something to offer everyone.'

Kelly Smith, Theatre Producer and Philosophy Undergraduate, Brighton.

The Free Will Defence to the Problem of Evil - an animation by Cognitivetag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834516cc769e201b7c70464ab970b2014-11-11T10:55:28+00:002014-11-11T10:55:28+00:00This animation was made by Cognitive from a script by Nigel Warburton. More on the Problem of Evil here: Listen to a Philosophy Bites interview with Stephen Law on Evilnigel warburton

This animation was made by Cognitive from a script by Nigel Warburton.

John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle - a 2 minute animationtag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834516cc769e201b8d08e612d970c2014-11-11T10:41:55+00:002014-11-11T10:41:55+00:00This animation was made by Cognitive from a script by Nigel Warburton. More on John Stuart Mill and Freedom here: Listen to a Philosophy Bites interview with Richard Reeves on Mill on Liberty Watch Michael Sandel discuss Mill's Utilitarianism (from...nigel warburton

This animation was made by Cognitive from a script by Nigel Warburton.

Free Will and the Libet Experiments - animatedtag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834516cc769e201bb07a77f90970d2014-11-07T15:56:26+00:002014-11-07T15:56:26+00:00Script by Nigel Warburton, animation by Cognitive. This is one of 48 videos that accompany BBC Radio 4's series 'History of Ideas'nigel warburton

Edmund Burke on the Sublime - animated tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834516cc769e201b8d08c42b1970c2014-11-07T15:28:50+00:002014-11-07T15:29:23+00:00amp;lt;/iframe Script by Nigel Warburton. This is one of 48 animations made by Cognitive to accompany BBC Radio 4's 'History of Ideas' series.nigel warburton

Plato on Beauty - Diotima's Ladder - an animation from Cognitive, script by Nigel Warburtontag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834516cc769e201b8d08c2723970c2014-11-07T12:31:52+00:002014-11-07T12:38:11+00:00This is the first of 48 short videos made by Cognitive, scripted by Nigel Warburton, to accompany the BBC Radio 4 series 'A History of Ideas'.nigel warburton

2 Philosophy Courses at Conway Halltag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834516cc769e201a73e03be08970d2014-08-18T08:50:21+01:002014-08-18T08:50:21+01:00Nigel Warburton will be leading two 6-session evening courses on Thursday evenings from 4th September, 2014 in the Bertrand Russell Room at Conway Hall near Holborn, London. Details of the courses and booking can be found here: Philosophy: the Basics...nigel warburton

Nigel Warburton will be leading two 6-session evening courses on Thursday evenings from 4th September, 2014 in the Bertrand Russell Room at Conway Hall near Holborn, London. Details of the courses and booking can be found here:

The course will run from 8.10pm - 9.40pm in the Bertrand Russell room for the first 4 sessions, and in the Library for the last 2.

A mixture of short lectures and group discussion focussed on classic works of political philosophy exploring questions of continuing relevance that emerge from them. No prior knowledge of philosophy assumed.

Topic covered include: Must political leaders have 'dirty hands'? What is the justification for having a state? What is property? Must a legitimate state have the consent of the people? Can you remain free while being part of a democray? What is alienation? What are the limits of individual freedom of expression in a civilised society?

Week 1. Niccolò Machiavelli The Prince

Week 2. Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

Week 3. John Locke Second Treatise on Civil Government

Week 4. Jean-Jacques Rousseau The Social Contract

Week 5. Marx - The German Ideology Part One

Week 6. J.S. Mill On Liberty and The Subjection of Women

Full price for the course (6 sessions) is £100 payable in advance via the Paypal button below. Concessions (students, unemployed, OAPs, those who have already signed up for or completed the Philosophy: the Basicscourse) £80 using the drop down menu on the button.

Full Price/Concession

Suggested Background Reading (optional)

Jonathan Wolff An Introduction to Political Philosophy (an excellent readable topic-based introduction to the area).

Books covered in Machiavelli to Mill (suggested editions - optional. I'm not expecting you to read these books, but will suggest selections from them during the course)

The course will run from 6.30p.m. - 8 p.m. (doors open from 6.15pm) in the Bertrand Russell room for the first 4 sessions, and in the Library for the last 2.

The price for the 6-session course is £100 payable in advance via Paypal using the buttons below. (concessions - full time students and unemployed - £80 use drop down menu on Paypal button)

Book now for Philosophy: The Basics course at Conway Hall

Full Price/Concession

Street Philosophy - a one-day workshop led by Nigel Warburton, 21st June 2014tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834516cc769e201a73dc668bf970d2014-05-18T20:18:22+01:002014-06-08T20:46:17+01:00Walk along any city street and you'll be confronted by philosophical topics, whether you realise it or not. This one-day course/workshop in central London is a chance to learn about and discuss a range of philosophical topics that arise quite...nigel warburton

Walk along any city street and you'll be confronted by philosophical topics, whether you realise it or not. This one-day course/workshop in central London is a chance to learn about and discuss a range of philosophical topics that arise quite naturally from everyday life.

The event is led by Nigel Warburton (interviewer for the popular Philosophy Bites podcast and author of A Little History of Philosophy, Philosophy: the Basics, Thinking from A to Z, and many other books...including a forthcoming book Street Philosophy).

No prior knowledge of philosophy assumed. Small group discussions. Maximum class size 20.

10.30 am - 11.30 am Driving and Moral Luck. If a drunk driver through good fortune manages to get home without knocking a cyclist over we judge him or her differently from a reckless driver who kills a cyclist. But should we? It may be luck whether or not the driver hits a cyclist, and then whether or not the cyclist survives the collision. What does this show about our concepts of blame and responsibility?

11.45am - 12.45 pm Street Art. What makes a Banksy a work of art? What does it mean to call it 'art'? Is the artworld right to charge such high prices for a genuine Banksy? If someone makes a copy of Banksy's stencil and sprays a few more copies of the work, are they art too? Can any mark on any wall be art?

2pm - 3pm Rich and Poor. Rich and poor pass each other daily on city streets, but is it right that such significant wealth inequalities exist? Would they exist in a just society?

3.15 - 4.15pm Street Surveillance. Street surveillance is the norm in the UK, whether by the state using CCTV or by our fellow citizens with cameraphones, and soon with Googleglass. Should we care that we are being recorded?

A mixture of short lectures and group discussion focussed on 7 classic works of political philosophy exploring questions of continuing relevance that emerge from them. No prior knowledge of philosophy assumed.

Topic covered include: Must political leaders have 'dirty hands'? What is the justification for having a state? What is property? Must a legitimate state have the consent of the people? Can you remain free while being part of a democray? What is alienation? What are the limits of individual freedom of expression in a civilised society?

Week 1. Niccolò Machiavelli The Prince

Week 2. Thomas Hobbes Leviathan

Week 3. John Locke Second Treatise on Civil Government

Week 4. Jean-Jacques Rousseau The Social Contract

Week 5. Marx - The German Ideology Part One

Week 6. J.S. Mill On Liberty and The Subjection of Women

Full price for the course (6 sessions) is £100 payable in advance via the Paypal button below. Concessions (students, unemployed, OAPs, those who have taken Philosophy: the Basics course) £80 using the drop down menu on the button.

Price/Concession

Suggested Background Reading (optional)

Jonathan Wolff An Introduction to Political Philosophy (an excellent readable topic-based introduction to the area).

Books covered in Machiavelli to Mill (suggested editions - optional)

Philosophy: the Basics course starts 29th April, Londontag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d834516cc769e201a3fce6cceb970b2014-04-04T08:51:33+01:002014-04-04T10:30:20+01:00Philosophy: the Basics course - Tuesday evenings 29th April - 3rd June A six-session introduction to Philosophy led by Nigel Warburton, author of A Little History of Philosophy, Philosophy: the Basics, Thinking from A to Z, Philosophy: the Classics, Free...nigel warburton

A six-session introduction to Philosophy led by Nigel Warburton, author of A Little History of Philosophy, Philosophy: the Basics, Thinking from A to Z, Philosophy: the Classics, Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction, The Art Question etc., and interviewer for the Philosophy Bites podcast series.